Christians, why do you hate Gays?

[Jainarayan]

I agree with you 100% here. If the voters had their say, then that is it. Government cannot intervene and I would be on board in this fight

The issue at hand, however, is that the state supreme court ruled that the state legislature must "make it right" and give same-sex couples the same benefits as married couples. The court said it didn't care how the legislature did it, just do it because the situation violated the equality clauses of the state constitution. So the legislature tread lightly and called it civil union, to appease the opponents, but it is still "separate but equal" (which never is). The previous governor signed the bill because it was better than nothing.

Even then, calling it civil union and falling short of the benefits of marriage, opponents "vowed" to get it overturned, knowing NJ is overwhelmingly liberal. NJ is so blue it falls into the ultra-violet range of the e.m. spectrum. There's the example of hate, control and ignorance. The opponents are actually going against the public, which has voted in a liberal legislature.

The main point is that it never was, nor ever will be up to the public to vote on this issue. This is a clear violation of the state constitution, but a suit has to be brought to the court. The legislature, knowing they must abide by the constitution has passed a marriage bill. Now we come full circle to Christie vowing to veto it based on his religious beliefs, and in effect legislating on his religious beliefs. That violates NJ the state and US constitutions.

 

[Jainarayan]

Oh I read this wrong, It hasn't been voted on yet?

There is no vote, never was, never will be. The legislature passed a bill that the governor refuses to sign. It's not a public issue, but a constitutional one.

 

[sojourner]

NJ governor Chris Christie has stated emphatically he will not sign a same-sex marriage bill that comes across his desk. This is because he is a devout Roman Catholic. Not because he does not feel the time is right, public opinion runs against it (it doesn't in NJ), but rather because of his RELIGIOUS beliefs.

Now, he is using his religious convictions to prevent the enacting of a law that is written and passed by the state legislature. In a roundabout way, imo this is a violation of the First Amendment. Whereas Congress cannot make a law to establish or endorse religion, the governor is using religion to NOT make a law. Yes, the legislature could muster a 2/3 vote to override him, but politics and taxpayer money being what they are, it's probably not the right time to do it this way. We can let the state supreme court sort it out as they did in ruling in favor of civil unions.

Now, a thought occurred to me with regard to voting MY convictions. Because of my humanitarian and legalistic, not religious convictions, I will not vote for Gov. Christie when he runs for re-election. You see, the knife cuts both ways. He is using his office as a public servant as a platform for his own religious and personal beliefs, flouting the needs and desires of his constituents. And I am using my convictions to help boot him out of office.

I'm using the portion of your post emboldened and in red to create a jumping off place for a thought I'm having:

If it's ethically wrong for a public official to use his office as a bully-pulpit for his own religious agenda, why is it less ethically wrong for us, as voters (and, as citizens, constitutionally, we are the government), to use our voting rights as a bully-pulpit for our own religious agendas?

Then, that led me to think, "Wait a minute! have I ever "voted my religious agenda?" And I tried to think back on my voting history, only to discover two things: 1) that I consistently have voted in favor of the best social justice choice, and 2) that what I consider the best social good has never been at odds with my religious convictions.

So, I conclude that my religious convictions are heavily informed by issues of social justice (which is as I believe it should be).

That led me to think, "Why am I, a professing Christian, serious about my religious convictions, at such odds with another professing Christian who, by all indications of her posts in this thread, is also serious about her religious convictions? What is it that's different about us?

I've come to the conclusion that (and I'm not pointing a finger at any one specific person -- but challenging all who seek to perpetuate the systemic dehumanization of homosexuals on the grounds of "religious conviction") the religious convictions of these people are not heavily invested in social justice (as, for instance, MLK's convictions were).

Their religious agenda seems to stem from a desire to "do the legal thing" (as the Pharisees portrayed), rather than from a desire to "do the right thing." In other words, it's more important to them that everybody else do what they think is in accordance with "God's law," than it is for the outcast to be included.

And I really have to wonder why that is -- and I really have to call into question the kind of religious teaching these people are receiving that seems so at odds with the gospel and the social justice that Jesus consistently models therein? And I really have to put forth the challenge for these folks to begin acting in a more Christlike manner, if they're going to call themselves "followers of Christ," no matter what the texts do or do not say about homosexuality.

 

[Jainarayan]

I'm using the portion of your post emboldened and in red to create a jumping off place for a thought I'm having:

If it's ethically wrong for a public official to use his office as a bully-pulpit for his own religious agenda, why is it less ethically wrong for us, as voters (and, as citizens, constitutionally, we are the government), to use our voting rights as a bully-pulpit for our own religious agendas?

Then, that led me to think, "Wait a minute! have I ever "voted my religious agenda?" And I tried to think back on my voting history, only to discover two things: 1) that I consistently have voted in favor of the best social justice choice, and 2) that what I consider the best social good has never been at odds with my religious convictions.

So, I conclude that my religious convictions are heavily informed by issues of social justice (which is as I believe it should be).

That led me to think, "Why am I, a professing Christian, serious about my religious convictions, at such odds with another professing Christian who, by all indications of her posts in this thread, is also serious about her religious convictions? What is it that's different about us?

I've come to the conclusion that (and I'm not pointing a finger at any one specific person -- but challenging all who seek to perpetuate the systemic dehumanization of homosexuals on the grounds of "religious conviction") the religious convictions of these people are not heavily invested in social justice (as, for instance, MLK's convictions were).

Their religious agenda seems to stem from a desire to "do the legal thing" (as the Pharisees portrayed), rather than from a desire to "do the right thing." In other words, it's more important to them that everybody else do what they think is in accordance with "God's law," than it is for the outcast to be included.

And I really have to wonder why that is -- and I really have to call into question the kind of religious teaching these people are receiving that seems so at odds with the gospel and the social justice that Jesus consistently models therein? And I really have to put forth the challenge for these folks to begin acting in a more Christlike manner, if they're going to call themselves "followers of Christ," no matter what the texts do or do not say about homosexuality.

I think you have hit it spot on. I too have voted my religious beliefs without being conscious of them; I just don't think of them as religious convictions. I think it is the right thing. My beliefs are social justice, equality and doing no harm in any way, shape or form. Those are the basic tenets of Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam and a host of other religions as they should be properly practiced.

Indeed, one can follow the letter of the law and be completely at odds with what one thinks that particular religion requires, if the spirit of the religion is not upheld. It's an irony that literally adhering to a religion's precepts can actually violate that religion's spirit and purpose. So we have to ask, "which is more important, social justice and equality, or words frozen in time in a religious text?" I think the answer is quite clear... religious texts have to be interpreted by scholars in that religion to make the religion come alive. I think God, whatever one calls him, cares far more about social justice than whom we love and sleep with. I think God is above the pettiness and prurience of snooping into bedrooms. Unfortunately this cannot be said of many people. Which is why we are not God.

 

[Alceste]

Yeah, but legalities aren't her bugaboo. religious morality is her bugaboo, and she's using legality to assuage her discomfort. she's not saying, "Gays can't be legally married because it poses a big problem for our system of law." She's saying, "Gays can't be legally married because God says that they way they're made is inherently sinful."

I've just really got a big problem with that stance for a couple of reasons:
1) It assumes a degree of finality (God said it, and there's nothing to be done about it) that places her position on the high ground of being "indisputable."
2) It places the "problem" within the sphere of one's ground of being, rather than on a discrepancy of law. It personalizes an unresolvable wrongdoing.

Her position dehumanizes gays (which I've asserted all along). it represents a systemic dehumanization (that of "religious morality") that is problematic for any homosexual who is a religious person.

I don't know how religious you are; I see from your profile that you're "Taoish." I don't know enough about "Taoishism" to know how "brand-loyal" they typically are. Many Christians are extremely "brand-loyal." It makes a real difference to us whether we call ourselves "Roman Catholic" or "Southern Baptist" or "Episcopalian," and it just is a big deal when we're chased away from our religious identity. "Changing denominations" is an unacceptable in many cases, and represents one of the tools of identified systemic violence: That of separation.

I agree that there are two fronts that need to be addressed -- just as there were two fronts in the equal rights movement: Legal and religious. Since the poster's ground of disagreement is religious, I don't see how a legal solution can be an assuagement for couples who are religious.

I'm not brand loyal. Taoish is a word I made up. My personal philosophy is sort of like Taoism, but not based on Taoism. First I came up with it (through a spontaneous, non-denominational meditation-like practice, which I also invented), then I discovered Taoism, and it pretty accurately matched what I'd already come up with.

I suppose I have been trying to establish the argument that what you do in church is your own business, between you and your spiritual community. I have no desire to interfere with any of that, as long as no-one is being hurt. What you do in the polling booth is my business, and everybody's business, and our pluralistic model of society only works if people of all walks of life accept that it is wrong to impose the rules from your church on everybody through force, via the government.

I'm trying to establish that a person can be all about defining marriage as "one man and one woman" in their own church and still not vote to define marriage this way in secular law. I see no contradiction.

 

[sojourner]

I'm not brand loyal. Taoish is a word I made up. My personal philosophy is sort of like Taoism, but not based on Taoism. First I came up with it (through a spontaneous, non-denominational meditation-like practice, which I also invented), then I discovered Taoism, and it pretty accurately matched what I'd already come up with.

I suppose I have been trying to establish the argument that what you do in church is your own business, between you and your spiritual community. I have no desire to interfere with any of that, as long as no-one is being hurt. What you do in the polling booth is my business, and everybody's business, and our pluralistic model of society only works if people of all walks of life accept that it is wrong to impose the rules from your church on everybody through force, via the government.

I'm trying to establish that a person can be all about defining marriage as "one man and one woman" in their own church and still not vote to define marriage this way in secular law. I see no contradiction.

Well, you're right (see my last post above). I'm really tired of this rhetoric that one should "vote one's religious convictions." That might work if this were a theocracy. But it's not. And since religious legalities were never meant to be universal for all people, voting religious legality in an extremely pluralistic society is generally a really bad idea.

But, as I said, for the religious homosexual, having a civil something-or-other like marriage, but calling it something else, just doesn't work. And ultimately, it creates a "separate-but-equal" mind set that only serves to be complicit in the systemic dehumanization process.

 

[sojourner]

I think you have hit it spot on. I too have voted my religious beliefs without being conscious of them; I just don't think of them as religious convictions. I think it is the right thing. My beliefs are social justice, equality and doing no harm in any way, shape or form. Those are the basic tenets of Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam and a host of other religions as they should be properly practiced.

Indeed, one can follow the letter of the law and be completely at odds with what one thinks that particular religion requires, if the spirit of the religion is not upheld. It's an irony that literally adhering to a religion's precepts can actually violate that religion's spirit and purpose. So we have to ask, "which is more important, social justice and equality, or words frozen in time in a religious text?" I think the answer is quite clear... religious texts have to be interpreted by scholars in that religion to make the religion come alive. I think God, whatever one calls him, cares far more about social justice than whom we love and sleep with. I think God is above the pettiness and prurience of snooping into bedrooms. Unfortunately this cannot be said of many people. Which is why we are not God.

Unfortunately for us all, many of these folks shy away from scholarship, because it's "man-made" (as if the bible isn't...)

 

[dgirl1986]

NJ governor Chris Christie has stated emphatically he will not sign a same-sex marriage bill that comes across his desk. This is because he is a devout Roman Catholic. Not because he does not feel the time is right, public opinion runs against it (it doesn't in NJ), but rather because of his RELIGIOUS beliefs.

Now, he is using his religious convictions to prevent the enacting of a law that is written and passed by the state legislature. In a roundabout way, imo this is a violation of the First Amendment. Whereas Congress cannot make a law to establish or endorse religion, the governor is using religion to NOT make a law. Yes, the legislature could muster a 2/3 vote to override him, but politics and taxpayer money being what they are, it's probably not the right time to do it this way. We can let the state supreme court sort it out as they did in ruling in favor of civil unions.

Now, a thought occurred to me with regard to voting MY convictions. Because of my humanitarian and legalistic, not religious convictions, I will not vote for Gov. Christie when he runs for re-election. You see, the knife cuts both ways. He is using his office as a public servant as a platform for his own religious and personal beliefs, flouting the needs and desires of his constituents. And I am using my convictions to help boot him out of office.

Our house of representatives (meant to represent the people) had to vote on the bill. Our prime ministers side were told they could vote as they chose. Our Atheist Prime Minister (who never plans on getting married to the male partner she lives with) said she does not agree with gay marriage and then used the bible to justify her position....

The other side were told by their leader (who has a gay sister) that they were not permitted to vote for it, if they did not agree with this than they were not permitted to vote at all. He claims to be a man of god.

I dont know how this is meant to represent the people, when one of the recent polls indiciated that around 60% of australian citizens were in support of gay marriage.

 

[Jainarayan]

... because it's "man-made"...

No, it's a trick of dat dair debbil. Just like the phony dinosaur fossils he planted (I'm not helping, am I? ).

 

[Jainarayan]

Tell me how this is meant to represent the people, when one of the recent polls indiciated that around 60% of australian citizens were in support of gay marriage.

That's easy... It doesn't. :no: Slimy weasles all, regardless of nationality. Some say it's a dilemma that representatives have... do they vote their conscience or do they vote their constituents' wishes. Well, I think if their consciences and better judgment override their constituents' wishes which might be contrary to the common good (using religion to legislate, for example) then they should vote their conscience and better judgment.

If however, it's the reverse and their constituents are for the common good, but the legislator (like Christie) follows his or her beliefs, the legislator has no business overriding the constituents' wishes. A legislator or politician has to work for the common good. But I think that only happens on other planets.

 

[dgirl1986]

That's easy... It doesn't. :no: Slimy weasles all, regardless of nationality. Some say it's a dilemma that representatives have... do they vote their conscience or do they vote their constituents' wishes. Well, I think if their consciences and better judgment override their constituents' wishes which might be contrary to the common good (using religion to legislate, for example) then they should vote their conscience and better judgment.

If however, it's the reverse and their constituents are for the common good, but the legislator (like Christie) follows his or her beliefs, the legislator has no business overriding the constituents' wishes. A legislator or politician has to work for the common good. But I think that only happens on other planets.

I view it as a type of corruption, and we all know how easily man is corrupted if it means their own personal wishes will be fulfilled.

 

[Jainarayan]

Absolutely!

 

[sojourner]

No, it's a trick of dat dair debbil. Just like the phony dinosaur fossils he planted (I'm not helping, am I? ).

Da Debbil's got an underdeveloped medulla oblongata, and Mama says dat wat make him mean!

(No, you're not helping a bit!)

 

[Jainarayan]

(No, you're not helping a bit!)

bwahahahaha

 

[Dingbat]

This thread just got better.

 

[sojourner]

This thread just got better.

I like your religion. Is it based in Alameeda?
(Star Trek smiley needed here)

 

[Lady B]

I noticed when I abandoned this thread you all went silly, you miss me or something?:flirt:

 

[Jainarayan]

I like your religion. Is it based in Alameeda?
(Star Trek smiley needed here)

"Vee are luking for deh nuclayar wessels."

"They're in Alameda."

"Dat's vut I sed, Ahlameedha!"

 

[Jainarayan]

I noticed when I abandoned this thread you all went silly, you miss me or something?:flirt:

It's a requirement that threads go silly. I think it's a forum rule or something.

 

[9Westy9]

It's a requirement that threads go silly. I think it's a forum rule or something.

rule 42 to be precise